DIDN’T BUDDHA HAVE A RATIONAL MIND?

Osho: He was very rational, but he had very irrational gaps. He was at ease with the irrational also. The concept we have of Buddha is not really of Buddha, but of the traditions that followed. Buddha was an altogether different thing. Because we cannot do otherwise, we have to go through Buddhists to reach Buddha. They have created a long tradition of two thousand years, and they have made Buddha very rational. He was not so.

You cannot be if you are deep into existence. You have to be irrational many times – and Buddha is! But to know this, we have to put aside the whole tradition and encounter Buddha directly. It is very difficult, but it can happen. If I am talking to a rational person, unconsciously he discards all that is not rational. But if I am talking to a poet, the same sentence and the same words signify something different. A rational man cannot look at the poetry of the words.

He can look only at the logic, the argument. A poet sees the words in a different way. The words have a shade of color, a poetry that is not connected at all with any argument.

So the faces of Buddha differ according to the person who is seeing him.

Buddha existed in India in a period when the whole country was going through a crisis of everything irrational: the VEDAS, the UPANISHADS, the whole mysticism. The movement against all this was very great, particularly in Bihar where Buddha was.

Buddha was charismatic, hypnotic. People were impressed by him. But the interpretation of Buddha was bound to be rational.

If Buddha had lived at another time in history, in a part of the world that was not against mysticism, he would have been seen as a great mystic, not as an intellectual. The face that is known belongs to the history of a particular time. As I see Buddha, he was not primarily rational. The whole concept of nirvana is mystical.

He was even more mystical than the UPANISHADS, because the UPANISHADS, however mystical they look, have their own rationality. They talk about transmigration of the soul. Buddha talked about transmigration without a soul. It is more mystical.

Buddha said:The UPANISHADS talk about liberation, but you will be there. Otherwise, the whole thing becomes nonsense. If I cannot be in that ultimate state of existence, then the whole effort is useless, illogical. Buddha said the effort is to be done – and you will not be there. It will just be nothingness. The concept is more mystical.(OSHO)

***

Buddha also holds that this world which changes from moment to moment is not real, it is only a reflection and the Thing of which it is the reflection alone is real. Buddha was not an atheist. He never denied the reality. There is nothing in his words or teaching to show that he considered the truth to be non-existent like horns of a hare. He could not have held the foolish view that something came out of nothing. It is true; some of his disciples misunderstood and misinterpreted him. his idea was that the truth which cannot be designated by a name , or described is words and of which one cannot even say whether it is existent or none extent , is like non-existent. The idea is quiet in agreement with the view of Upanishads.

An object which cannot even be talked about, is, for all practical purposes, as good as non-extent. But it is not non-existent in the sense that the son of a barren woman is non-existent. This subtle idea, Buddha's contemporaries and even his disciple fail to catch. In one passage Buddha says clearly: Srmana Guutama was an atheist. It is annihilation of non-existent of truth that he teaches. So will people attribute to me atheism, which is not mine. So will they ascribe me to the theory of non-existent ,which again is not mine.

From these similar statements of Buddha it is clear that he was not an atheist. All philosophers old and new, arrive at the same point.

Orthodox Advaita (monosim) that is inevitable; the people of thoughtful temperament cannot find peace and quietude until they do so. Moksha (liberation) is in the realization of oneness with God. They speak of God Goddesses, devotion and devotee, only in an in an accurate way only from the standpoint of dvaithi. After realization oneness with God, there is no distinction between god and devotee, and the word "devotion" has no meaning.

As one moves deeper he realizes from a personal to an impersonal Absolute he realizes, the universe is mere an illusion.

Most of the teachings are hotchpotch mixture of the different view of different Sages of the past, thus lack of originality.

Sage Sri, Sankara’s supreme Brahman is Nirguna (without the Gunas), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without attributes) and Akarta (non-agent). He is above all needs and desires. Sankara says, "This Atman is self-evident. This Atman or Self is not established by proofs of the existence of the Self. It is not possible to deny this Atman, for it is the very essence of he who denies it. The Atman is the basis of all kinds of knowledge. The Self is within, the Self is without, the Self is before and the Self is behind. The Self is on the right hand, the Self is on the left, the Self is above and the Self is below".

Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam- -Anandamare not separate attributes. They form the very essence of Brahman. Brahman cannot be described, because the description implies distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than the self.

The objective world-the world of names and forms-has no independent existence. The Atman alone has real existence. The world is only phenomenal.

Sage Sri, Sankara was the exponent of the Advaita philosophy. His teachings can be summed up in the following words:-

Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya,

Jeevo Brahmaiva Na Aparah

Brahman alone is real, this world is unreal; the Jiva is identical with Brahman.

Sage Sri, Sankara said :- Just as the snake is superimposed on the rope, this world and this body are superimposed on Brahman or the soul, the innermost self. If one gets knowledge of the rope, the illusion of the snake will vanish. Even so, if he gets knowledge of Brahman, the illusion of the body and the world will vanish.

That is why Sage Sri, Sankara says: - VC-63. Without causing the objective universe to vanish and without knowing the truth of the Self, how is one to achieve Liberation by the mere utterance of the word Brahman? — It would result merely in an effort of speech.

65. As a treasure hidden underground requires (for its extraction) competent instruction, excavation, the removal of stones and other such things lying above it and (finally) grasping, but never comes out by being (merely) called out by name, so the transparent Truth of the self, which is hidden by Maya and its effects, is to be attained through the instructions of a knower of Brahman, followed by reflection, meditation and so forth, but not through perverted arguments.

Most think Consciousness usually implies something, thoughts or things, but it is the formless nondual nature of the Atman or the soul. The soul is present in the form consciousness.

The consciousness exists with or without the matter because without the consciousness the matter ceases to exist because the matter is created out of consciousness. It exists as the matter in waking or dream. And when wisdom dawns it is consciously aware of its formless nondual true nature in the midst of matter, as in deep sleep.

Proof is the main thing in pursuit of truth, "How can God exists without man’s existence?” how can the world exist without man’s existence. Thus man has to exist first to say god and world exists. Thus seeker has to verify about his own existence to realize the fact that, all the three states are unreal, on the standpoint of the formless witness, which is the soul, the innermost self.

Whatever have appeared (birth, life, death and world) has appeared on its own and it disappears on its own. Whether a person takes it as reality or illusion it all depends on his mental and intellectual conditions will determine the phenomenal world observed and experienced. The look of an object will depend upon the medium through which the observer views it. A Gnani viewing the universe (practical life within the practical world) different from the ignorant is viewing the same universe (practical life within the practical world). Each one of them interprets the universe he sees in term of his existing knowledge. The Gnani sees his body, his ego and his experience of the world as a mere mirage created out of consciousness, whereas the ignorant sees his body as body, his ego as ego and his experience of the world as the world.

Thus experiencing the pain and pleasure within the illusion with the illusory self, within the illusory experience, has to be an illusion. The illusion is created, and sustained, and finally dissolves as consciousness, which is the innermost Self. Since, there is no second thing other than the consciousness (soul); the consciousness itself is ultimate truth or Brahman. The one who has realized this truth for him this illusion is a passing show because he is fully aware of the fact that his body, his ego and his experience of the world to be consciousness. Practical peoples approach is more practical, and they are stuck with the reality of the practical life within the practical world, they take it as real whereas for Gnani has the firm conviction that:-

Formless soul or Consciousness is the witness that experiences the action, the actor, and the world of separate things. It is like a light that illuminates everything in a theatre, revealing the master of ceremonies, the guests, and the dancers with complete impartiality. Even when they all depart, the light shines to reveal their absence.